Must Read

Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC477

By

Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 477||Case Summary 



Introduction 

  1. In this appeal, the Court has interpreted Article 15(4) of the Fundamental Right. It has been added by the 1st Amendment Act, of 1951.

Facts

  1. The State of Haryana instructed Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU), Rohtak to conduct entrance examination for MD/MS/PG courses for the Session 2008-2009.
  2. The appellant made a representation to the Health Secretary for providing reservation for SC and ST in the Post Graduate courses, Since there was no response from the Health Secretary the Appellant filed a petition in the High Court. 
  3. The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant therefore the appellant approached the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition under Article 136.

Appellant Contentions 

  1. MDU, Rohtak has provided 20% reservation for the graduate level courses or undergraduate courses therefore the said University should also provide reservation in for the PG courses. 
  2. The Government of India itself by the All-India Entrance Examination for Post-Graduate courses provided reservation to the SC/ST candidates, therefore the State of Haryana is also bound to provide reservation to the SC and ST candidates. 
  3. The Appellant Counsel while referring to Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P, 1999 case said that the Court permitted to provide relief in the qualifying marks for the Post-graduate courses. 

Respondent Contention 

  1. We have already provided reservations for the UG courses.
  2. Article 15(4) is an enabling provision, not a mandatory provision therefore after looking at several aspects we decided to not provide reservations in the Post-graduate courses.

Issue

  1. Whether the Court can issue a writ to direct the State Government for implemention of reservation in the educational institute under Article 15(4) of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi 

  1. Article 15 [Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth] clause (4) says: empowers the State any special provisions for the upliftment of any socially and educationally backward class of citizens or the SC and ST.
  2. Articles 15(4) and 16(4) both are enabling provisions not mandatory provisions.
  3. In the Case of Preeti Srivastava, 1999 the Court did not examine whether the reservation is permissible of Post-graduate level in medicine. It only discussed the question of fixing lower minimum qualify marks for reserved category at the Post-graduate medical education.
  4. It is true that GOI itself provided reservation to the SC and ST candidates by the All-India Entrance Examination but at the State Level, the power is given to the State.
  5. At the State Level reservations in educational institutions can be provided by the permission of State Government.

Decision 

  1. The Court cannot direct to the State Government for implementation of reservation in educational institutions as Article 15(4) is an enabling provision.
  2. Hence, the Court dismissed the writ petition. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Post

Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche (1875)

By
Image
Ashbury railway carriage v riche|| Case Summary  Introduction   This case is related to the " Doctrine of Ultra Vires". In this case, the directors of the appellant company made an agreement with the plaintiff which was beyond the objectives, as mentioned in its MoA, of the appellant Company. Since the agreement was beyond its objectives, the appellant company repudiated the agreement later. Therefore the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the damages. Facts   The directors of the appellant company (Ashbury Railway Carriage) had contracted to obtain a concession from Gillon and Poeters Baerston, who obtained this right from the Belgian Government, to make a railway.  For this purpose, the directors of the appellant company again entered into a contract with Riche, a contractor, the purpose of which was to establish a société anonyme,  and as the plaintiff went on with the work, the appellant company had to pay into the hands of société anonyme,  Earlier the sharehol
Read more

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353

By
Image
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th
Read more